I have a general question about how to debug in Simpy. Normal debugging tools don't seem to work, since everything is working on the event loop, and you can't step through the code line by line and inspect what exists at any point in time.
Primarily, I'm interested in finding what kinds of processes and callbacks are in existence at a particular time, and how to remove them at the appropriate point. Are there any best practices surrounding debugging in discrete event simulation generally?
I would just use a bunch of print()s.
One thing you might find useful is the specific requests that can be passed to primitives such as resources. For example you can ask a resource how many users it currently has or how big the queue to use the resource is with:
All of these commands can be found in the documentation, here is the resource example: https://simpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api_reference/simpy.resources.html
Related
Recently, I am studying the problem of task scheduling in Flink. My purpose is to schedule subtasks to a slot of the specified node according to my own needs by modifying some source codes of the scheduling part. Through remote debugging and checking the source code, I found the following method call stack, most of which I can't understand (the comments are a little less), especially in this method: org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.slotpool.SchedulerImpl#allocateMultiTaskSlot. I guess the code that allocates slots to tasks is around here. Because it is too difficult to read the source code, I have to ask you for help. Of course, if there is a better way to achieve my needs, please specify one or two. Sincerely look forward to your reply! Thank you very much!!!
The method call stack is as follows(The version of Flink I use is 1.11.1):
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.JobMaster#startJobExecution
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.JobMaster#resetAndStartScheduler
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.JobMaster#startScheduling
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.SchedulerBase#startScheduling
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.DefaultScheduler#startSchedulingInternal
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.strategy.EagerSchedulingStrategy#startScheduling
(This is like the method call chain of PipelinedRegionSchedulingStrategy class. In order to simply write it as the method call chain of EagerSchedulingStrategy class, it should have no effect)
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.strategy.EagerSchedulingStrategy#allocateSlotsAndDeploy
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.DefaultScheduler#allocateSlotsAndDeploy
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.DefaultScheduler#allocateSlots
org.apache.flink.runtime.scheduler.DefaultExecutionSlotAllocator#allocateSlotsFor
org.apache.flink.runtime.executiongraph.SlotProviderStrategy.NormalSlotProviderStrategy#allocateSlot
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.slotpool.SchedulerImpl#allocateSlot
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.slotpool.SchedulerImpl#allocateSlotInternal
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.slotpool.SchedulerImpl#internalAllocateSlot
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.slotpool.SchedulerImpl#allocateSharedSlot
org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmaster.slotpool.SchedulerImpl#allocateMultiTaskSlot
(I feel that this is the key to allocate slot for subtask, that is, execution vertex, but there is no comment, and I don't understand the process idea, so I can't understand it.)
I was working on a Simulink model recently and was using Goto and From blocks to keep a very busy system from becoming a twisted mess of wires. I was informed that I was not to use Goto and From blocks as they are considered bad style (at least, according to my employer).
While I hold that wires should be kept connected whenever possible, I believe that Goto and From blocks can significantly improve the readability of a system/subsystem if the model would result in lots of crossed wires otherwise; especially if the blocks can be color-coded (e.g. purple Goto block goes to all the purple From blocks).
I'd supply an image of the subsystem I'm working with, but I'm not sure I can put it on here. The subsystem itself has about 12 subsystem blocks (and possibly more later) within it, each with two bus-type outputs. The first output of each subsystem goes to a Bus Creator block, and the second output of each goes to a second Bus Creator block. Since the subsystem are aligned vertically and the Bus Creators are to the right, this results in many crossed wires. I was using Goto and From blocks to clean up the system.
I can supply an image of a smaller, but similar model that I put together for this question.
For a system with on the order of 12 subsystems, this becomes very busy. I was using Goto and From blocks to connect the subsystems and the Bus Creators without a plethora of crossed wires.
I believe my employer may be carrying the stigma of using goto statements from text-based languages and applying it to Goto/From blocks in Simulink. Generally speaking, is using Goto and From blocks in this way (or any way) considered to be bad style?
The Mathworks Automotive Advisory Board has published some modeling guidelines (PDF) that include usage of Goto/From. The rules they list are:
Do not have subsystems that are floating, i.e. all inputs / output ports are connected via Gotos. One of the great things about Simulink is the ability to determine signal flow with only a cursory visual inspection, do not destroy this by linking everything with Gotos. At least have one feed-forward and one feedback loop between subsystems connected by signal lines.
My personal opinion on feedback signals is that they should all be connected with signal lines, but I'm sure you can come up with cases where drawing all of them clutters the model.
The second guideline is about the scope of the Goto tag; keep the visibility local as much as possible.
I feel setting visibility to scoped is acceptable also as long as you're not using the matching From more than a couple of levels downstream from the Goto. I've yet to come across a legitimate need for a global Goto tag.
So, all Goto usage isn't bad, and you're right that it can improve readability in some cases. That being said, I don't think Gotos are justified for the picture above. I realize it is just an example, but I should point out that if the buses being created are virtual that order of the inputs at the creator doesn't matter, and rearranging Bus Create and Mux block inputs can work wonders for readability.
The problem with the guidelines above are that there's room for bending them, and developers on your team might do just that. Even if everyone is diligent about following them at first, you may run afoul of these guidelines one day, a long time from now, when you redraw that section of the model for refining / adding functionality. Rearranging inputs and outputs can be especially irritating in middle of implementing some cool new feature. That may be the reason your employer chose to impose a blanket ban. It is inconvenient in some cases, but is easier to enforce.
are pytest_sessionstart(session) and pytest_sessionfinish(session) valid hooks? They are not described in dev hook docs or latest hook docs
What is the difference between them and pytest_configure(config)/pytest_unconfigure(config)?
In docs it is said:
pytest_configure(config)called after command line options have been parsed. and all plugins
and initial conftest files been loaded.
and
pytest_unconfigure(config) called before test process is exited.
Session is the same, right?
Thanks!
The bad news is that the situation with sessionstart/configure is not very well specified. Sessionstart in particular is not much documented because the semantics differ if one is in the xdist/distribution case or not. One can distinguish these situations but it's all a bit too complicated.
The good news is that pytest-2.3 should make things easier. If you define a #fixture with scope="session" you can implement a fixture that is called once per process within which test execute.
For distributed testing, this means once per test slave. For single-process testing, it means once for the whole test run. In either case, if you do a "--collectonly" run, or "-h" or other options that do not involve the running of tests, then fixture functions will not execute at all.
Hope this clarifies.
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
GOTO, does it affect the performance while it is executed and run on the device?
Is it a good practice to use GOTO in objective C or is it bad practice to use it?
And, when is it a good choice to use GOTO statement?
Thanks.
A goto is simply a jump, so that its effect on performance is practically zero. It’s a bad practice because it harms code readability; you can mostly do without it. Some of the cases where it makes sense to use goto are described in previous questions, just search for goto.
Using a go to statement is usually a bad practice, especially in a object oriented language(where you can achieve the same purpose in an OO way easyly ), but not from a performance point of view but rather from the code readability point of view...
There is nothing in BAD and GOOD practice this is up to your requirement.
If you have same code which you want to execute you can say loop then you can use goto. Well here is a small example about this I think it would clear your doubt.
Declare any label name, here hello is label then you can call it using goto statement like this -
hello:
NSLog(#"Print hello!");
goto hello;
This would print 'Print hello!' again and again.
Not affecting the performance, just for a good structure and readability which are important features of professional programming. But sometimes, using goto may help to ease complexity in cases where the loop is too deep, but you want to jump out when certain condition is triggered. Even so, it can also be avoided in other ways.
In principle goto can affect performance simply by being present in the function.
The performance difference will almost always be unnoticeable, and there are a lot of things other than goto than can slightly perturb the optimizer and affect performance. But if you're interested you could examine the emitted code for differences.
It's a basic requirement in the emitted code that the same registers must be used for the same things at the source and target of the goto[*]. This constrains the register allocation when the compiler optimizes the code. Such constraints may have no effect at all, they may slow things down or cause additional code to be emitted. If they speed things up, it can only be by accident because the compiler's heuristics were in effect incorrect when applied to the unconstrained version.
The effect might be more pronounced for a computed goto (a GNU extension), where you can store a label in a variable and goto the variable. In that case, every possible target has to share a register state with every possible source.
What doesn't (normally) make a difference to performance is goto the start or end of a block vs. the equivalent break or continue or else. It's all the same to the optimizer: the compiler breaks your code down into so-called "basic blocks" with jumps and conditional jumps between them. It doesn't normally care whether the reason for the jump is a goto or not, and it has to get the register states right no matter which. This is why almost any programming construct can be described as "goto in disguise" by someone who's only thinking about the emitted instructions.
[*] to be more precise -- there could be an implicit zap at a goto, meaning that some register is used for one thing at the source and isn't used at all at the target. But you can't have some register that the target expects to contain a particular value (like the current value of a variable) and the source doesn't. So if that was the case before and then you add the goto, either the target needs to stop expecting it, or the source needs to put it there. Typically either one is going to require extra code to shuffle values between registers and stack.
I'm looking at some slightly confused code that's attempted a platform abstraction of prefetch instructions, using various compiler builtins. It appears to be based on powerpc semantics initially, with Read and Write prefetch variations using dcbt and dcbtst respectively (both of these passing TH=0 in the new optional stream opcode).
On ia64 platforms we've got for read:
__lfetch(__lfhint_nt1, pTouch)
wherease for write:
__lfetch_excl(__lfhint_nt1, pTouch)
This (read vs. write prefetching) appears to match the powerpc semantics fairly well (with the exception that ia64 allows for a temporal hint).
Somewhat curiously the ia32/amd64 code in question is using
prefetchnta
Not
prefetchnt1
as it would if that code were to be consistent with the ia64 implementations (#ifdef variations of that in our code for our (still live) hpipf port and our now dead windows and linux ia64 ports).
Since we are building with the intel compiler I should be able to many of our ia32/amd64 platforms consistent by switching to the xmmintrin.h builtins:
_mm_prefetch( (char *)pTouch, _MM_HINT_NTA )
_mm_prefetch( (char *)pTouch, _MM_HINT_T1 )
... provided I can figure out what temporal hint should be used.
Questions:
Are there read vs. write ia32/amd64 prefetch instructions? I don't see any in the instruction set reference.
Would one of the nt1, nt2, nta temporal variations be preferred for read vs. write prefetching?
Any idea if there would have been a good reason to use the NTA temporal hint on ia32/amd64, yet T1 on ia64?
Are there read vs. write ia32/amd64 prefetch instructions? I don't see any in the instruction set reference.
Some systems support the prefetchw instructions for writes
Would one of the nt1, nt2, nta temporal variations be preferred for read vs. write prefetching?
If the line is exclusively used by the calling thread, it shouldn't matter how you bring the line, both reads and writes would be able to use it. The benefit for prefetchw mentioned above is that it will bring the line and give you ownership on it, which may take a while if the line was also used by another core. The hint level on the other hand is orthogonal with the MESI states, and only affects how long would the prefetched line survive. This matters if you prefetch long ahead of the actual access and don't want to prefetch to get lost in that duration, or alternatively - prefetch right before the access, and don't want the prefetches to thrash your cache too much.
Any idea if there would have been a good reason to use the NTA temporal hint on ia32/amd64, yet T1 on ia64?
Just speculating - perhaps the larger caches and aggressive memory BW are more vulnerable to bad prefetching and you'd want to reduce the impact through the non-temporal hint. Consider that your prefetcher is suddenly set loose to fetch anything it can, you'd end up swamped in junk prefetches that would through away lots of useful cachelines. The NTA hint makes them overrun each other, leaving the rest undamaged.
Of course this may also be just a bug, I can't tell for sure, only whoever developed the compiler, but it might make sense for the reason above.
The best resource I could find on x86 prefetching hint types was the good ol' article What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory.
For the most part on x86 there aren't different instructions for read and write prefetches. The exceptions seem to be those that are non-temporal aligned, where a write can bypass the cache but as far as I can tell, a read will always get cached.
It's going to be hard to backtrack through why the earlier code owners used one hint and not the other on a certain architecture. They could be making assumptions about how much cache is available on processors in that family, typical working set sizes for binaries there, long term control flow patterns, etc... and there's no telling how much any of those assumptions were backed up with good reasoning or data. From the limited background here I think you'd be justified in taking the approach that makes the most sense for the platform you're developing on now, regardless what was done on other platforms. This is especially true when you consider articles like this one, which is not the only context where I've heard that it's really, really hard to get any performance gain at all with software prefetches.
Are there any more details known up front, like typical cache miss ratios when using this code, or how much prefetches are expected to help?